jkharvey

If the plan is using the triple match scenario intending to meet the SH requirements, must all of the match be 100% vested?

Our client is a utility district that maintains a 401k plan as well as a 457 plan. We don't do anything for the 457 plan so I'm really not familiar w/ all of the rules but I have read that rollovers can be made from a 457 plan into a 401k plan. The client would like to terminate the 457 plan and roll/merge those assets into the 401k plan. I'm reading the Regulations and see the requiremetns for plan-to-plan transfers but I'm not sure this will help me. The regs keep referring to transfers among eligible governmental plans. If i go to the 457 definitions i see that an eligible plan is another 457 plan, is this correct? My bottom line question is can the 457 terminate and have the assets merged into the 401k plan w/out offering participants a chance to take distributions? If so, is there a regulation that I'm missing that permits this?

We are taking over a plan of an Employer has a volume submitter profit sharing plan. The prior TPA did not have the ER sign Form 8905 and the EIN ends in 6. My first reaction was panic, but maybe I overreacted. Am I correct that this Employer will still be eligible for the 6-year cycle provided he meets the requirements outlined at Section 17 of Rev Proc 2007-44? Just because the ER did not sign Form 8905 by 1/31/2007 (Cycle A deadline) does not mean that the plan was not timely amended for EGTRRA? Thank you

Are these notices required for 403b plan?

Brand new plan provides for immediate entry if employed by 8/1/2005. Only the two owners meet this requirement. The other participants were hired one month later and in this first year would not be eligible. Other than this "looks" funny, is this immediate entry a BRF that would fail coverage?

I was thinking that if each plan could pass coverage separately (counting only its employees as benefitting but counting employees of both entities in the total employee number ), then 401a4 could be tested separately. Am I incorrect?

Two employers (located in US) are each owned by the same parent company (located overseas). Controlled group situation. One of the employers has a 401k plan in which no HCEs currently participate. They want to establish a Plan for the other Employer. The other employer has 3 hces and 3 nhces. The new plan would not pass 410(b) coverage including all the employees from both groups. If each plan could pass coverage considering employees of all employers, then we could test each plan separately for other nondiscrim testing, right? Any suggestions on ways to separate these employers for testing purposes? I've thought of QSLOB but one employer only has 6 employees.

Thank you. I've resolved the issue and convinced all parties involved that this is not the way to go. I suggested the separate "checking" account outside of the platform investments.

We have a SH 401k plan. Several terminated participants need small contributions for the 3% SH nonelective. Some in our office suggest having the Employer make this contribution as a payment directly to the employee rather than deposit into the trust then make the distribution. The reason they are giving is that we can avoid having to open an account at the investment company (platform type investment at Hartford/Nationwide/American Funds, etc). This makes me nervous but I need to provide "some really good reasons" not to do this. Can you lead me to specific cites for this either way?

Thank you so much. I tried to search but I'm not very good at it. So I can find the other posts, can you please tell me your search parameters? Thanks again.

Here is the situation. One of the owners took no compensation in this plan year. If I pull him into the ADP test, they will pass. Without him, they fail. I don't want to take a chance and do the wrong thing. How is a participant who was eligible in prior years but has no comp in this year treated?

The issue is getting this information set up in Relius as a new annuity table. The entry for a new table requires the factors and not just the APR (unless I'm missing something). This is a Target Benefit Plan and this Annuity table is used to compute the target benefit. I think I can manually make the computations now that I have the APR, but I would really rather avoid that. I think there is just too much chance for error.

Thanks. We have sent the APR table to the actuary. I was kind of hoping that this was a relatively simple computation...lol I'm sure the actuary will convince me other wise.

I tried the factors in the download that Doug provided. These aren't producing the APR that I hve in the prior document. Does anyone know how i can convert these APRs into the factors I need to enter into the Relius admin annuity table?

Thanks, I searched those tables and not there. I have tried to google it and nothing comes of it. It is the strangest thing. We have a target benefit plan (not written by us) that actually has this plan defined in the language as the table being used to calculate the benefit.

Would anyone happen to have it or help me find it?

I've done some research and don't see any requirement that an employer who sponsors both a MPP and a PSP combine account balances for participants when determining if the account balance is less than $1000 for the mandatory cashout. Does anyone have information to the contrary?

I have searched and searched this board, IRS, etc and find nothing new. With the elimination of Schedule P did IRS provide specific instructions that state the SOL starts w/ filing of Form 5500? Maybe I just missed seeing it?

Parntership loses one of its partners. This partner left 8/2005. There is still a k1 for this parnter for ther 2006 year. he did not work any hours in 2006. He only has k1 earnings. Is he still considered employed for allocation purposes? No 1000 hour or last day requirement. I think that since he actually left in 2005 and did not work an hour in 2006, he is not eligible.

A new client for us has prior valuations prepared by another TPA for his Target Benefit plan using assumptions I have never seen. The interest rate used to compute the benefit is 5.5%. I know that the 401(a)(4) regs provide standard interest rates of no less than 7.5% nor greater than 8.5 percent. The regs provide that the Commissioner may change the defition of standard interest rate. Has this rate been changed to allow for 5.5 and I just missed it?

I want to make sure I understand something. Is there ALWAYS a short plan year (meaning that limits are prorated as applicable) in a termination year if the plan does not terminate as of last day of the plan year?

The Employer wants to buy back some shares from the ESOP. All shares are currently allocated to participants. Under what circumstances can the company come along and decide they want to buy back shares from the ESOP?

More than 6 mths ago the participant paid medical expenses with his credit card. Today he says he can't pay the CC and wants a hardship for these expenses. My gut is telling me that this won't fly as a hardship distribution. Plan document uses safe harbor hardship requirements. Thoughts?

Actually, DOD is 2005 so distributions will need to start by 12/31/2006, if spouse elects the life expectancy method. Does that change your opinion?

I understand that the spousal beneficiary of a participant (Defined Contribution plan) who died before his RMD (he turned 70 1/2 in 2006 and the RMD is 4/1/2007) has two options for distributions, the 5 year rule or life expectancy rule. At least, I think that's correct. Anyhow, if the beneficiary chooses the life expectancy rule her distributions must start by 12/31/2006. Can she take any of this account balance and roll it into her own IRA? If she chooses the 5 year rule can she take the entire balance and roll into her personal IRA as long as it is all done within the 5 years? Thank you